State v. Holton, 198 So. 3d 201

Randy Dale Holton was charged with two counts of simple burglary (LSA-R.S. 14:62) and one count of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (LSA-R.S. 14:68.4).
He pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement: the State agreed to a 10-year sentencing cap on each count and not to file an habitual offender bill.
The trial court advised Holton of his Boykin rights and accepted his plea as knowing and voluntary.
Holton moved to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing; the trial court held a hearing and denied the motion, finding the plea voluntary and supported by evidence.
The court sentenced Holton to 10 years at hard labor on each count, to run concurrently (the agreed cap); a motion for new trial was denied and Holton appealed.
Appellate counsel filed an Anders brief and motion to withdraw, concluding there were no non-frivolous issues; the defendant did not file a pro se brief or request the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Holton's motion to withdraw his guilty plea	The court properly accepted a knowing, voluntary plea and denial was within discretion	Plea should be withdrawn (implicit claim of involuntariness or other defect)	Denial affirmed: record shows Boykin warnings, understanding of plea, and voluntariness; no abuse of discretion
Whether Holton can seek review of his sentence imposed under the plea agreement cap	Sentence imposed under agreed cap is not reviewable on appeal	Sentencing claims (if any)	Barred from reviewing sentence because it was imposed under a plea-agreement sentencing cap
Whether appellate counsel may withdraw under Anders after concluding no non-frivolous issues exist	Anders procedure was followed: brief filed, copies mailed to defendant	Holton could raise issues pro se but did not	Counsel's motion to withdraw granted: appellate Anders brief adequate and defendant did not pursue pro se filings
Whether there are any patent errors in the record	State: no patent error	Holton: none identified	Court reviewed record and found no error patent

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (requires counsel to file brief identifying any arguable issues when seeking to withdraw)
State v. Jyles, 704 So.2d 241 (La. 1997) (Anders-like procedures in Louisiana)
State v. Mouton, 658 So.2d 1176 (La. 1995) (procedural guidance on Anders briefs)
State v. Benjamin, 573 So.2d 528 (La. App. 4th Cir. 1990) (Anders procedures at appellate level)
State v. Harris, 980 So.2d 174 (La. App. 2d Cir. 2008) (standard for withdrawal of guilty plea review)
State v. Young, 680 So.2d 1171 (La. 1996) (sentence imposed under plea agreement cap is not appealable)
State v. Moore, 743 So.2d 877 (La. App. 2d Cir. 1999) (same rule on reviewability of plea-agreement sentences)